Prospective, single-center cohort study analyzing the efficacy of complete laparoscopic resection on recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy versus radiofrequency ablation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter, propensity score matching analysis

This study aimed at analyzing and comparing the clinical efficacy and prognosis of repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (r-LH) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treating recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). Clinicopathological data of RHCC patients who underwent r-LH or RFA as treatment from three medical centers were retrospectively reviewed. Baseline characteristics at the recurrence time after initial hepatectomy and clinical outcomes following treatment of RHCC were compared between the two groups. Using the Kaplan-Meier method, survival curves for the two groups of patients were generated, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival differences. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match patients of the r-LH and RFA groups in a 1:1 ratio. A total of 272 patients were enrolled, including 133 patients who underwent r-LH and 139 patients who received RFA. After PSM, 76 patients were matched in each study group. Compared with the r-LH group, the RFA group had shorter hospitalization and fewer postoperative complications. However, the r-LH group had significantly better overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) than the RFA group before and after PSM. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that RHCC patients with solitary tumor or those with tumors located near the diaphragm, visceral surface or vessels, had survival benefits from r-LH. When tumor diameter ≤ 5 cm, r-LH appears to be an effective priority to RFA with a significantly higher OS and DFS rate in treating RHCC patients, especially for patients with solitary tumor and those with tumors located near the diaphragm, visceral surface or vessels.

Robotic versus laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy: A comparative single-center study of perioperative outcomes

PURPOSE

A repeat liver resection is considered a technically challenging procedure and therefor an open approach is frequently preferred. With the introduction of minimally invasive liver surgery, laparoscopic repeat liver resection demonstrates favorable results, however, limited data on robotic repeat liver resections exists. Our aim is to compare the robotic approach with the laparoscopic one for a repeat liver resection.

METHODS

In a single-center retrospective analysis, we report the data of all minimally invasive repeat liver resections performed between September 2011 and August 2023. Short-term outcomes - including procedure time, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality - were compared for a laparoscopic and a robotic approach.

RESULTS

A total of 136 minimally invasive repeat liver resections were performed, of which 56 robotic procedures and 80 laparoscopic procedures. Both groups were similar in baseline demographics, diagnosis and surgical procedure. While the mean procedure time was slightly longer in the robotics group by 15 min (145min and 130min, p = 0.04), the median blood loss was significantly lower in the robotic group (30 ml and 80 ml, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was a trend towards less conversions in the robotic group (n = 0 and n = 6, p = 0.42). Post-operative morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The robotic approach for minimally invasive repeat liver surgery is both safe and feasible, while also demonstrating favorable short-term outcomes. In our experience, the 'tunnel technique' - which avoids dissection of intra-abdominal adhesions - is a key advantage of this approach.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted. Surface under cumulative ranking area values, mean difference, odds ratio, and 95% credible intervals were calculated for all outcomes. Cluster analysis was performed to determine the most cost-effective clustering approach. Costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, and costs-efficacy were the primary outcomes assessed, with postoperative overall morbidity, mortality, and length of stay associated with total costs for open, laparoscopic, and robotic liver resection.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic liver resection incurred the lowest total costs (laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection: mean difference -2,529.84, 95% credible intervals -4,192.69 to -884.83; laparoscopic liver resection versus robotic liver resection: mean difference -3,363.37, 95% credible intervals -5,629.24 to -1,119.38). Open liver resection had the lowest procedural costs but incurred the highest hospitalization costs compared to laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection. Conversely, robotic liver resection had the highest total and procedural costs but the lowest hospitalization costs. Robotic liver resection and laparoscopic liver resection had a significantly reduced length of stay than open liver resection and showed less postoperative morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in the lowest readmission and liver-specific complication rates. Laparoscopic liver resection and robotic liver resection demonstrated advantages in costs-morbidity efficiency. While robotic liver resection offered notable benefits in mortality and length of stay, these were balanced against its highest total costs, presenting a nuanced trade-off in the costs-mortality and costs-efficacy analyses.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection represents a more cost-effective option for hepatectomy with superior postoperative outcomes and shorter length of stay than open liver resection. Robotic liver resection, though costlier than laparoscopic liver resection, along with laparoscopic liver resection, consistently exceeds open liver resection in surgical performance.

Interaction between miR‑206 and lncRNA MALAT1 in regulating viability and invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are strongly associated to the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which presents a high potential for diagnosis and treatment; however, the role of miRNAs is still largely unknown. The aim of the present study was to examine the expression and the biological role of miRNA (miR)-206 in the development of HCC, and to identify the underlying molecular mechanism. Results from this study show that miR-206 was significantly downregulated in HCC tissues and cell lines. It was observed that low expression of miR-206 was linked to advanced TNM stage, tumor nodularity and venous infiltration in patients with HCC; low miR-206 expression was associated with shorter survival times. miR-206 overexpression using miR-206 mimics notably decreased the proliferative ability and increased apoptosis of MHCC97-H and HCCLM3 HCC cell lines. Overexpression of miR-206 suppressed invasiveness associated with reduced epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Moreover, the c-Met oncogene, which is upregulated in HCC tissues, was negatively associated with the expression of miR-206. Notably, it was shown that miR-206 may exert its antitumor effect through suppressing c-Met/Akt/mTOR signaling. Low expression of miR-206 was shown to be regulated by lncRNA MALAT1 in HCC. Collectively, this study presented evidence that miR-206 was controlled by lncRNA MALAT1 and partially suppressed the proliferation and invasion of HCC through the c-Met/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway. According to these results, understanding MALAT1/miR-206-dependent regulation may lead to potential approaches for diagnosis and prospective treatment of HCC.

Challenging Scenarios and Debated Indications for Laparoscopic Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Laparoscopic liver resections (LLRs) have been increasingly adopted for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with safe short- and long-term outcomes reported worldwide. Despite this, lesions in the posterosuperior segments, large and recurrent tumors, portal hypertension, and advanced cirrhosis currently represent challenging scenarios in which the safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach are still controversial. In this systematic review, we pooled the available evidence on the short-term outcomes of LLRs for HCC in challenging clinical scenarios. All randomized and non-randomized studies reporting LLRs for HCC in the above-mentioned settings were included. The literature search was run in the Scopus, WoS, and Pubmed databases. Case reports, reviews, meta-analyses, studies including fewer than 10 patients, non-English language studies, and studies analyzing histology other than HCC were excluded. From 566 articles, 36 studies dated between 2006 and 2022 fulfilled the selection criteria and were included in the analysis. A total of 1859 patients were included, of whom 156 had advanced cirrhosis, 194 had portal hypertension, 436 had large HCCs, 477 had lesions located in the posterosuperior segments, and 596 had recurrent HCCs. Overall, the conversion rate ranged between 4.6% and 15.5%. Mortality and morbidity ranged between 0.0% and 5.1%, and 18.6% and 34.6%, respectively. Full results according to subgroups are described in the study. Advanced cirrhosis and portal hypertension, large and recurrent tumors, and lesions located in the posterosuperior segments are challenging clinical scenarios that should be carefully approached by laparoscopy. Safe short-term outcomes can be achieved provided experienced surgeons and high-volume centers.

Surgical Strategies for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Resection: A Review of Current Evidence

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer, and both liver resection and liver transplantation are considered potentially curative options. However, high recurrence rates affect the prognosis depending both on the primary HCC pathology characteristics or on the type and time of the relapse. While great attention has been usually posted on treatment algorithms for the first HCC, treatment algorithms for recurrent HCC (rHCC) are lacking. In these cases, surgery still represents a curative option with both redo hepatectomy and/or salvage liver transplantation, which are considered valid treatments in selected patients. In the current era of personalised medicine with promises of new systemic-targeted immuno-chemotherapies, we wished to perform a narrative review of the literature on the role of surgical strategies for rHCC.

The role of laparoscopic surgery in the surgical management of recurrent liver malignancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the efficiency of laparoscopic surgery in treating recurrent liver tumors vs. conventional open surgery.

Methods

Database searching was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE. Rev Man 5.3 software and Stata 13.0 software were applied in statistical analyses.

Results

A total of fourteen studies were finally included with 1,284 patients receiving LRH and 2,254 with ORH. LRH was associated with less intraoperative hemorrhage, a higher R0 resection rate, a lower incidence of Pringle Maneuver, a lower incidence of postoperative morbidities, a better overall survival and an enhanced postoperative recovery vs. ORH. Patients receiving LRH shared similar operative time, tumor number and disease-free survival as those with ORH. However, tumor size was relatively larger in patients receiving ORH and major hepatectomy, anatomic hepatectomy were rarely performed in patients with LRH. Additional analyses between LRH and laparoscopic primary hepatectomy revealed less intraoperative blood loss in patients with LRH.

Conclusion

LRH is safe and feasible with more favorable peri-operative outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. However, it is only applicable for some highly-selected cases not requiring complex surgical procedures. Future larger well-designed studies are expected for further validation.

Laparoscopic versus open liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is a widely practiced therapeutic method and holds several advantages over open liver resection (OLR) including less postoperative pain, lower morbidity, and faster recovery. However, the effect of LLR for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in elderly patients remains controversial. Therefore, we aimed to perform the first meta-analysis of propensity score-matched (PSM) studies to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of LLR versus OLR for elderly patients with HCC.

METHODS

Databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched until April 2022 for eligible studies that compared LLR and OLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients. Short-term outcomes include postoperative complications, blood loss, surgical time, and length of hospital stay. Long-term outcomes include overall survival (OS) rate and disease-free survival (DFS) rate at 1, 3, and 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 12 trials involving 1,861 patients (907 in the LLR group, 954 in the OLR group) were included. Compared with OLR, LLR was associated with lower postoperative complications (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.62, P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%), less blood loss (MD -285.69, 95% CI -481.72 to -89.65, P = 0.004, I 2 = 96%), and shorter hospital stay (MD -7.88, 95% CI -11.38 to -4.37, P < 0.0001, I 2 = 96%), whereas operation time (MD 17.33, 95% CI -6.17 to 40.83, P = 0.15, I 2 = 92%) was insignificantly different. Furthermore, there were no significant differences for the OS and DFS rates at 1, 3, and 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

For elderly patients with HCC, LLR offers better short-term outcomes including a lower incidence of postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays, with comparable long-term outcomes when compared with the open approach. Our results support the implementation of LLR for the treatment of HCC in elderly patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0156/, identifier INPLASY202240156.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy versus conventional open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Repeat hepatectomy has been proven to be an effective treatment in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC). However, for RHCC, it is still controversial whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is superior to conventional ones. The present meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the safety and overall effect of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) to open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for patients with RHCC.

Methods

A meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO, and the registration number is CRD42021257569. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched based on a defined search strategy to identify eligible studies before 25 April 2022. Data on operative times, bleeding volume, overall complications, 90-day mortality, blood transfusion, length of stay, overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate were subjected to meta-analysis.

Results

Overall, we identified nine studies of LRH versus ORH enrolling a total of 945 patients (460 and 485 underwent LRH and ORH, respectively). The present meta-analysis revealed non-significant differences in operative time, blood transfusion, overall complications, 90-day mortality, 3-year overall survival rate, 5-year overall survival rate, and long-term recurrence-free survival rate between the two groups. Alternatively, comparing LRH with ORH, LRH has less bleeding volume (p < 0.001) and a shorter length of stay (p = 0.005).

Conclusion

LRH is a feasible and effective treatment strategy for RHCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#searchadvanced, identifier CRD42021257569.

Efficacy of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy compared with open repeat hepatectomy: a single-center, propensity score matching study

Introduction

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) is considered to be a technically challenging procedure which has not been widely applied. This study aimed to assess the accessibility and security of LRH for patients with hepatic tumor recurrence.

Methods

Between January 2010 and October 2020, we performed 48 LRHs and 31 open repeat hepatectomies (ORHs) for recurrent liver cancer. LRHs were matched to ORHs (1:1) using propensity score matching (PSM) created by comparing preoperative factors. The perioperative data of patients were retrospectively analyzed, including baseline data, operative time, intraoperative blood loss, pathology, days of postoperative stay, complication morbidity, and mortality within 30 days. Overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates with appropriate follow-up were obtained to evaluate the long-term outcomes.

Results

Compared with the ORH, LRH was related with shorter operative duration (169.9 versus 232.9 ml, p < 0.01), less intraoperative bleeding (100.0 versus 500.0 ml, p < 0.01), lower rate of blood transfusion (8.3% versus 58.1%, p < 0.01), and shorter hospitalization (5.0 versus 11.0 days, p < 0.01). The median follow-up was 31 months. The LRH 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival were 77.1%, 61.6%, and 46.2% versus 82.3%, 66.5%, and 29.5% for ORH (p = 0.77). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year disease-free survival rates of the two groups were 73.4%, 62.0%, and 44.3% versus 66.1%, 44.1%, and 14.7%, respectively (p = 0.22).

Conclusions

Laparoscopic repeated hepatectomy is safe and practicable with great short-term results for selected patients.

Laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma in hepatectomy patients: inverse probability of treatment weighting

Repeat liver resection (RLR) is a good treatment option for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) is more technically demanding than open repeat liver resection (ORLR). The purpose of our study is to compare the surgical outcomes of ORLR and LRLR and to carefully present LRLR guidelines for HCC. We performed RLR at a single institution from January 2017 to November 2019. We divided the patients into an ORLR group and an LRLR group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied in this study to compare the ORLR group and the LRLR group. There was no difference between the two groups in patient characteristics, preoperative blood tests and pathological characteristics. After stabilized IPTW, the LRLR group had a shorter hospital stay (5.52 vs. 9.27 days, p = 0.001) and superior disease-free survival (p = 0.020). LRLR yielded better short-term outcomes than ORLR. And if a regular radiologic examination is performed, most of the recurrent tumors could be detected less than 3 cm. In conclusion, LRLR might be feasible and useful for recurrent HCC located contralateral to the previous tumor at a size of less than 3 cm.

Is minimally invasive liver surgery a reasonable option in recurrent HCC? A snapshot from the I Go MILS registry

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a safe procedure. Repeat surgery is more often required, and the role of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is not yet clearly defined. The present study analyzes data compiled by the Italian Group of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery (IGoMILS) on LLR. To compare repeated LLR with the first LLR for HCC is the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the outcome of repeat LLR in the case of primary open versus primary MILS surgery. The data cohort is divided into two groups. Group 1: first liver resection and Group 2: Repeat LLR. To compare the two groups a 3:1 Propensity Score Matching is performed to analyze open versus MILS primary resection. Fifty-two centers were involved in the present study, and 1054 patients were enrolled. 80 patients underwent to a repeat LLR. The type of resection was different, with more major resections in the group 1 before matching the two groups. After propensity score matching 3:1, each group consisted of 222 and 74 patients. No difference between the two groups was observed. In the subgroup analysis, in 44 patients the first resection was performed by an open approach. The other 36 patients were resected with a MILS approach. We found no difference between these two subgroups of patients. The present study in repeat MILS for HCC using the IGoMILS Registry has observed the feasibility and safety of the MILS procedure.

Laparoscopic vs. Open Repeat Hepatectomy for Recurrent Liver Tumors: A Propensity Score-Matched Study and Meta-Analysis

Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors.

Patients and Methods: A propensity score–matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune–inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models.

Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = −0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.79 to −0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = −0.79, 95% CI = −1.11 to −0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19–0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups.

Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.

Intrahepatic recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: an update

Hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence occurs in 40-70% of patients after hepatic resection. Despite the high frequency of hepatocellular cancer relapse, there is no established guidance for the management of such cases. The evaluation of prognostic factors that indicate a high risk of recurrence after surgery such as the tumor number and size and the presence of microvascular invasion may guide the therapeutic strategy and point out which patients should be strictly monitored. Additionally, the administration of adjuvant treatment or ab initio liver transplantation in selected patients with high-risk characteristics could have a significant impact on the prevention of relapse and overall survival. Once the recurrence has occurred in the liver remnant, the available therapeutic options include re-resection, salvage liver transplantation and locoregional treatments, although the therapeutic choice is often challenging and should be based on the characteristics of the recurrent tumor, the patient profile and most importantly the timing of relapse. Aggressive combination treatments are often required in challenging cases of early relapse. The results of the above treatment strategies are reviewed and compared to determine the optimal management of patients with recurrent hepatocellular cancer following liver resection.

Economic analysis of open versus laparoscopic versus robotic hepatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following the publication of reports from landmark international consensuses (Louisville 2008 and Morioka 2014), minimally invasive hepatectomy became widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to open surgery. We aimed to compare the operative, hospitalization, and total economic costs of open (OLR) vs. laparoscopic (LLR) vs. robotic liver resection (RLR).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (end-of-search date: July 3, 2020) according to the PRISMA statement. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted. Quality assessment was performed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies reporting on 3847 patients (1783 OLR; 1674 LLR; 390 RLR) were included. The operative costs of LLR were significantly higher than those of OLR, while subgroup analysis also showed higher operative costs in the LLR group for major hepatectomy, but no statistically significant difference for minor hepatectomy. Hospitalization costs were significantly lower in the LLR group, with subgroup analyses indicating lower costs for LLR in both major and minor hepatectomy series. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding total costs between LLR and OLR both overall and on subgroup analyses in either major or minor hepatectomy series. Meta-analyses showed higher operative, hospitalization, and total costs for RLR vs. LLR, but no statistically significant difference regarding total costs for RLR vs. OLR.

CONCLUSION

LLR's higher operative costs are offset by lower hospitalization costs compared to OLR leading to no statistically significant difference in total costs, while RLR appears to be a more expensive alternative approach.

Impact of non-liver-related previous abdominal surgery on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections: a propensity score-matched controlled study

INTRODUCTION

The presence of previous abdominal surgery (PAS) has traditionally been considered to add difficulty to and increase risk of complications of laparoscopic procedures. This study aims to analyse the impact of non-liver-related PAS on the difficulty of minimally invasive liver resections (MILRs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After exclusion of patients with concomitant major surgical procedures as well as previous liver resections, 515 consecutive patients undergoing MILR in Singapore General Hospital from 2006 to 2019 were analysed, consisting of 161 MILR in patients with previous abdominal surgery (WPAS) and 354 MILR in patients without previous abdominal surgery (WOPAS). Propensity score-matched (PSM) comparison was performed between WPAS and WOPAS groups. In addition, subgroup analysis was made comparing previous upper or lower abdominal surgery and open versus minimally invasive approach of PAS. Outcomes measured include those associated with operative difficulty such as open conversion rates, operative time, blood loss, as well as morbidity and mortality rates.

RESULTS

MILR outcomes in patients WPAS are not inferior to those WOPAS. Overall open conversion rate was 8.2%, higher in patients WOPAS compared to patients WPAS (11.9% versus 3.5%, p = 0.015). Operating time (p = 0.942), blood loss (p = 0.063), intraoperative blood transfusion (p = 0.750), length of hospital stay (p = 0.206), morbidity (p = 0.217) and 30- and 90-day mortality (p = 1 & p = 0.367) were comparable between the two groups and subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

Outcomes of MILR in patients with previous non-liver-related abdominal surgery are not inferior to patients without previous abdominal surgery.

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy for treating recurrent liver cancer

Background

Laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) is a technically challenging procedure, so LRH for recurrent liver cancer has not been widely accepted. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the current literature to identify and evaluate available data of LRH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) and metastases tumour of liver, especially of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), focusing on the safety and feasibility.

Methods

A comprehensive search of the PubMed database was performed for all studies published in English evaluating LRH for rHCC and recurrent metastases tumour of liver from 1^st January, 2005 to 1^st June, 2019.

Results

A total of 15 studies which comprised 444 patients and reported outcomes for the efficacy and safety of LRH in the treatment of rHCC or CRLM were included in the present review. Moreover, nine studies compared the perioperative outcomes of LRH versus open repeat hepatectomy (ORH). LRH was superior to ORH with reduced blood loss, shorter operative time, shorter hospital stay and lower morbidity rates.

Conclusions

LRH can safely performed in rHCC or CRLM patients with cirrhosis, previous open hepatectomy, multiple recurrent lesions and tumours located in difficult posterosuperior segments.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Left Lateral Segmentectomy for Large Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

With the advancement of endoscopic technology, laparoscopic liver resection has become the standard procedure for left lateral segmentectomy. The aim of this study was to compare perioperative and oncological outcomes between laparoscopic and open left lateral segmentectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) >5 cm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 66 patients underwent left lateral segmentectomy for HCC (>5 cm) during the period spanning between 2013 and 2015. To overcome selection bias, 1:3 match using propensity score-matched analysis was performed between laparoscopic and open liver resection.

RESULTS

Relatively smaller tumor size (6.0 vs. 7.0 cm; P=0.030) and more frequent incidence of complete tumor capsule (93.3% vs. 58.8%; P=0.013) were observed in the laparoscopic group compared with the open group before matching. Although the longer operation time (195 vs. 150 min; P=0.022) was consumed in the laparoscopic procedure after matching, the laparoscopic group had shorter postoperative hospital stay (6 vs. 7 d; P=0.002) and less blood loss volume (50 vs. 100 mL; P=0.022). The Pringle maneuver for hepatic inflow occlusion was more likely to be applied in patients who underwent open surgery. The incidence of postoperative complication seemed to be lower in the laparoscopic group (6.7%) compared with that in the open group (11.8%) before matching. On the basis of propensity score-matched analysis, the complication rates were comparable between the 2 groups (7.1% vs. 6.7%, P=0.953). No difference in the 1-year and 3-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates was found between the laparoscopic and open groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic left lateral segmentectomy for large HCC patients showed better perioperative outcomes and equivalent oncologic outcomes as the open procedure, providing evidence for considering as a standard laparoscopic practice through careful selection.

Current status of laparoscopic liver resection for the management of colorectal liver metastases

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide. The commonest site of spread is the liver, with up to 40% of patients developing colorectal liver metastasis (CLRM) during the course of their lifetime. Significant advances in surgical techniques, as well as breakthroughs in chemotherapy and biologic agents, have resulted in dramatic improvements in prognosis. A multimodal approach comprising of liver resection coupled with systemic therapy offers these patients the best chance of cure. The arrival of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) within the last 3 decades has added a whole new dimension to the management of this condition. Today, CLRM is one of the most frequent indications for LLR globally. Meta-analyses of retrospective studies and two randomized trials have demonstrated superior short-term outcomes following LLR, with no differences in mortality rates. Oncologically, R0 resection rates are comparable to the open approach, while overall and disease-free survival rates are also similar. As surgeons gain confidence, boundaries are pushed even further. High-volume centers have published their early experiences with complex LLR of recurrent CLRM as well as totally laparoscopic synchronous resection of CRC and liver metastases, with very encouraging results. In the presence of extensive bilobar CLRM, two-stage hepatectomy (TSH) and associating liver partition with portal vein ligation (ALPPS) may be adopted to augment an inadequate future liver remnant to facilitate metastasectomy. Interestingly, the adoption of LLR for these techniques also seem to confer additional benefits. Despite the plethora of advantages, LLR comes with its own unique set of limitations such as a steep learning curve and high cost. The surgical world eagerly awaits the results of prospective trials currently underway in order to further advance the management of this disease.

Perioperative outcomes comparing laparoscopic with open repeat liver resection for post-hepatectomy recurrent liver cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Repeat laparoscopic hepatectomy (LRH) offers an option for recurrent tumors in liver remnants following an initial liver resection of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC), showing advantages in some outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and potential benefits of LRH in comparison with repeat open hepatectomy (ORH) for recurrent liver cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed in compliance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) and AMSTAR (Assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews) guidelines. We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify studies that compared LRH with ORH from inception to September 30, 2019. Outcomes of interest included operation time, intraoperative estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complication rate, transfusion and R0 resection rate. The protocol was registered with the PROSPERO register of systematic reviews.

RESULTS

10 retrospective observational studies were suitable for this analysis, involving 767 patients with 334 undergoing LRH (43.5%) and 433 undergoing ORH (56.5%). Compared with ORH, LRH had less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -1.03; 95% CI: 1.48~-0.59, P < 0.001), less overall postoperative complications (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.16-0.99, P = 0.048), less major complications (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.15-0.62, P = 0.001), shorter hospital stay (SMD = -0.98; 95% CI: 1.41~-0.54, P < 0.001) and higher R0 resection rate (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.39-3.81, P = 0.001). It was comparable in operation time (WMD = -7.66; 95% CI: 52.50-37.19, P = 0.738), transfusion rate (OR = 0.33; 95% CI:0.11-1.05, P = 0.060), and mortality (OR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.27-2.18, P = 0.615) between LRH and ORH.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that LRH is a safe and effective technique. Benefits, especially less intra-operative blood loss, less complications rate, shorter hospital stay and higher R0 resection, might be offered in the laparoscopic approach.

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection after open liver resection: A comparative study from a single-centre

Background:

Technological innovations have made it possible to use laparoscopic liver resection in cases with pre-existing adhesions or cicatricial changes. However, laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons, especially in case of previous open liver surgery. This study evaluated the outcomes of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) in cases of recurrent liver cancer.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 62 patients who underwent laparoscopic minor liver resection at our institution between September 2012 and September 2016 were retrospectively divided into an LRLR group (n = 13) and a laparoscopic primary liver resection group (LPLR; n = 49). The two groups were compared in terms of patient demographics, surgical procedures and short-term outcomes. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs).

Results:

There was a significant intergroup difference in the hepatitis virus background, although the two groups' primary histology and pre-operative liver function were comparable. The two groups had statistically similar values for extent of resection, operative time, estimated blood loss, transfusion requirement, conversion to laparotomy, post-operative complications, surgical margins, time to oral intake and hospital stay. No significant differences were detected when we stratified the cases according to low and intermediate difficulty. Furthermore, there were no intergroup differences in RFS or OS in the two groups for patients with HCC and CRLM.

Conclusions:

The findings suggest that minor LRLR after OLR is safe and comparable with minor LPLR in the present study.

Outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection for recurrent liver cancer: A system review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With the improvements of surgical instruments and surgeons' experience, laparoscopic liver resection has been applied for recurrent tumors. However, the value of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) is still controversial nowadays, which compelled us to conduct this meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive evidence about the efficacy of LRLR for recurrent liver cancer.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed to identify all eligible trials published up to April 2019. This meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the perioperative data and oncological outcomes of LRLR by compared with open repeat liver resection (ORLR) and laparoscopic primary liver resection (LPLR). A fixed or random-effect modal was established to collect the data.

RESULTS

A total of 1232 patients were included in this meta-analysis (LRLR: n = 364; ORLR: n = 396; LPLR: n = 472). LRLR did not increase the operative time compared to ORLR (WMD = 15.92 min; 95%CI: -33.53 to 65.37; P = .53). Conversely, LRLR for patients with recurrent tumors was associated with less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -187.33 mL; 95%CI: -249.62 to -125.02; P < .00001), lower transfusion requirement (OR = 0.24; 95%CI: 0.06-1.03; P = .05), fewer major complications (OR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.23-0.76; P = .004), and shorter hospital stays (WMD = -2.31; 95%CI: -3.55 to -1.07; P = .0003). In addition, the oncological outcomes were comparable between the two groups. However, as for the safety of LRLR compared with LPLR, although the operative time in LRLR group was longer than LPLR group (WMD = 58.63 min; 95%CI: 2.99-114.27; P = .04), the blood loss, transfusion rates, R0 resection, conversion, postoperative complications, and mortality were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR for recurrent liver cancer could be safe and feasible in selected patients when performed by experienced surgeons.

Comparison of clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of laparoscopic liver resection versus open liver resection for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC).

METHODS

Published studies which investigated laparoscopic versus open liver resection for RHCC were identified, and meta-analysis was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Six studies were analyzed by meta-analysis method, and cumulative 335 cases were included in this study. Laparoscopic liver resection was performed in 145 cases, and open liver resection was performed in 190 cases. Meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in operative time and 90-day mortality between the laparoscopic group and the open group (p = 0.06 and p = 0.06 respectively); Nevertheless, compared with the open group, the laparoscopic group resulted in significantly lower rate of in-hospital complication (p < 0.0001), much less blood loss (p < 0.0001) and shorter postoperative hospital stay (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection for RHCC offers a benefit of lower in-hospital complication rate, less blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, while similar operative time and 90-day mortality as the open liver resection. Laparoscopic liver resection is feasible with satisfactory postoperative outcomes and can be a safe alternative treatment strategy to open procedure for RHCC.

Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent HCC: Comparison with Open Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent HCC and Laparoscopic Resection for Primary HCC

BACKGROUND

This study aims to determine the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC).

METHODS

Twenty patients underwent LRLR for rHCC between 2015 and 2017. The control groups consisted of 79 open RLR (ORLR) for rHCC and 185 LLR for primary HCC. We undertook propensity score-adjusted analyses (PSA) and 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) for the comparison of LRLR versus ORLR. Comparison of LRLR versus LLR was done using multivariable regression models with adjustment for clinically relevant covariates.

RESULTS

Twenty patients underwent LRLR with three open conversions (15%). Both PSA and 1:1-PSM demonstrated that LRLR was significantly associated with a shorter stay, superior disease-free survival (DFS) but longer operation time compared to ORLR. Comparison between LRLR versus LLR demonstrated that patients undergoing LRLR were significantly older, had smaller tumors, longer operation time and decreased frequency of Pringle's maneuver applied. There was no difference in other key perioperative outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that in highly selected patients; LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe. LRLR was associated with a shorter hospitalization but longer operation time compared to ORLR. Moreover, other than a longer operation time, LRLR was associated with similar perioperative outcomes compared to LLR for primary HCC.

Short-term outcomes of laparoscopic repeat liver resection after open liver resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) still represents a challenge for surgeons especially in case with previous open liver surgery. The aim of the study is to perform a systematic review of the current literature to investigate the feasibility of LRLR after open liver resection (OLR) for liver diseases.

METHODS

A computerized search was performed for all English language studies evaluating LRLR. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the short-term outcomes in comparative studies between LRLR with previous laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and OLR.

RESULTS

From the initial 55 manuscripts, 8 studies including 3 comparative studies between LRLR after OLR and LLR were investigated. There was a total of 108 patients. Considering initial surgery, the extent of initial liver resection was major liver resection in 20% of patients in whom it was reported. In all the patients, the most frequent primary histology was hepatocellular carcinoma, followed by colorectal liver metastasis. A half of reported patients had severe adhesions at the time of LRLR. The median operative time for LRLR was ranged from 120 to 413 min and the median blood loss ranged from 100 to 400 mL. There were 11% of the patients conversions to open surgery, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery, or tumor ablation. The overall postoperative morbidity was 15% of all the patients, and there was no postoperative mortality. The median postoperative hospital stay was ranged from 3.5 to 10 days. The meta-analysis shows that LRLR after OLR is associated with a longer operative time and a more important blood loss compared to LRLR after LLR. However, no difference between LRLR after OLR and LLR was shown as far as hospital stay and morbidity rate are concerned.

CONCLUSIONS

LRLR after OLR has been described in eight articles with favorable short-term outcomes in highly selected patients.

The prognostic and predictive value of the combination of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who receive transarterial chemoembolization therapy

Purpose

This study was designed to evaluate the prognostic value of the combination of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) (neutrophil/platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR–PLR]) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who receive transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) therapy.

Patients and methods

Data from 216 patients who were diagnosed with HCC after TACE therapy were retrospectively collected. R software was used to analyze the time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and to compare the area under the ROC curves (AUROCs).

Results

The long-term survival rates were significantly higher for patients with lower values than those with higher values of NLR, PLR, and NLR–PLR. The mean overall survival decreased gradually with increases in the NLR–PLR score (P<0.0001). The AUROC values of the NLR–PLR score were consistently higher than those of NLR and PLR.

Conclusion

This study showed that the NLR–PLR score might be a useful predictor for patients with HCC who receive TACE therapy.

Multicentre propensity score-matched study of laparoscopic versus open repeat liver resection for colorectal liver metastases

BACKGROUND

Repeat liver resection is often the best treatment option for patients with recurrent colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Repeat resections can be complex, however, owing to adhesions and altered liver anatomy. It remains uncertain whether the advantages of a laparoscopic approach are upheld in this setting. The aim of this retrospective, propensity score-matched study was to compare the short-term outcome of laparoscopic (LRLR) and open (ORLR) repeat liver resection.

METHODS

A multicentre retrospective propensity score-matched study was performed including all patients who underwent LRLRs and ORLRs for CRLM performed in nine high-volume centres from seven European countries between 2000 and 2016. Patients were matched based on propensity scores in a 1 : 1 ratio. Propensity scores were calculated based on 12 preoperative variables, including the approach to, and extent of, the previous liver resection. Operative outcomes were compared using paired tests.

RESULTS

Overall, 425 repeat liver resections were included. Of 271 LRLRs, 105 were matched with an ORLR. Baseline characteristics were comparable after matching. LRLR was associated with a shorter duration of operation (median 200 (i.q.r. 123-273) versus 256 (199-320) min; P < 0·001), less intraoperative blood loss (200 (50-450) versus 300 (100-600) ml; P = 0·077) and a shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 (3-8) versus 6 (5-8) days; P = 0·028). Postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar after LRLR and ORLR.

CONCLUSION

LRLR for CRLM is feasible in selected patients and may offer advantages over an open approach.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing the Short- and Long-Term Outcomes for Laparoscopic and Open Liver Resections for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Updated Results from the European Guidelines Meeting on Laparoscopic Liver Surgery, Southampton, UK, 2017

BACKGROUND

The laparoscopic approach to liver resection has experienced exponential growth in recent years; however, its application is still under debate and objective, evidence-based guidelines for its safe future progression are needed.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

To identify all the comparative manuscripts reporting on laparoscopic and open liver resection for HCC, all published English-language studies with more than 10 cases were screened. In addition to the primary meta-analysis, four specific subgroup analyses were performed on patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis, resections for solitary tumors, and those undergoing minor and major resections. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

From the initial 361 manuscripts, 28 were included in the meta-analysis. Five of these 28 manuscripts were specific to patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis (321 cases), 11 focused on solitary tumors (1003 cases), 16 focused on minor resections (1286 cases), and 3 focused on major resections (164 cases). Three manuscripts compared 1079 cases but could not be assigned to any of the above subanalyses. In general terms, short-term outcomes were favorable when using a laparoscopic approach, especially in minor resections. The only advantage seen with an open approach was reduced operative time during major liver resections. No differences in long-term outcomes were observed between the approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic liver resection for HCC is feasible and offers improved short-term outcomes, with comparable long-term outcomes as the open approach.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of laparoscopic versus open repeat hepatectomy for recurrent liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Repeat hepatectomy plays a key role in recurrent hepatic tumors. However, it is still unknown whether laparoscopic hepatectomy is suitable for recurrent liver cancers. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) compared with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH).

METHODS

Several databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and Ovid, were retrieved from date of inception to 31st March 2018. All articles comparing LRH and ORH were identified. Tumor characteristics and perioperative outcomes including resection type, operation time, blood loss, transfusion, complications and hospital stay were evaluated. Data were extracted and calculated using random- or fixed-effect models.

RESULTS

A total of seven non-randomized observational clinical articles including 443 patients were analyzed. LRH was associated with significantly lower blood loss (WMD = -389.09, 95% CI -628.34 to -149.84, P = 0.001), transfusion (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.03-0.74, P = 0.019) as well as limited hospital stay (WMD = -4.00, 95% CI -6.58 to -1.42, P = 0.002). No statistical difference was found in the field of tumor characteristics and other perioperative outcomes. In the sensitivity analysis of case-match studies, LRH was associated with significant limited hospital stay, but with significant longer operation time. There were 8 (1.8%, range 0-13.3%) cases of conversion in LRH group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of these limited data, LRH is as feasible and efficient as ORH by expert surgeons in selected patients, whose cancer is resectable at the time of surgery and who have Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis.

Multidisciplinary management of recurrent and metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma after resection: an international expert consensus

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth-most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. However, 40-70% patients eventually suffer from postoperative recurrence within 5 years. HCC recurrence after surgery severely affects prognosis of the patients. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to improve patients' prognosis if doctors and researchers can recognize the importance of a standardized perioperative management and study it in clinical and pre-clinical settings. Hence, based on our own experience and published studies from other researchers, we develop this consensus regarding multidisciplinary management of locally recurrent and metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma after resection. This consensus consists of the entire course of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (RHCC) management, including prediction of recurrence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and surveillance of RHCC. Consensus recommendations are presented with grades of evidences (Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb, III and IV), and strength of recommendations (A, B, C, D and E). We also develop a decision-making path for RHCC treatment, which can intuitively demonstrate the management for RHCC. It is hoped that we may make some effort to standardize the management of RHCC and ultimately understand how to improve outcomes.

Increased Overall Survival and Decreased Cancer-Specific Mortality in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated by Transarterial Chemoembolization and Human Adenovirus Type-5 Combination Therapy: a Competing Risk Analysis

BACKGROUND

In analyzing cancer patient survival data, the problem of competing risks is often ignored. This study used a competing risk approach to evaluate the efficacy of recombinant human type-5 adenovirus (H101) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated by transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 476 patients were included. The cumulative probabilities of cancer-specific mortalities were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier (KM) method and a competing risk model. Competing risk regression was used to assess the predictive factors for cumulative cancer-specific mortalities.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-eight HCC patients received combination TACE and H101 therapy, and another 238 HCC patients received TACE therapy alone. For patients in the TACE with H101 group, estimated 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 61.0, 40.0, and 31.5%, respectively, while for patients in the TACE group, the estimated 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 55.0, 33.4, and 22.3%, respectively. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year cancer-specific mortality rates for patients in the TACE with H101 group vs. the TACE group were 37.3 vs. 42.0%, 55.7 vs. 63.5%, and 61.9 vs. 74.7%, respectively. Multivariate competing risk analysis established that a combination of TACE and H101 therapy was an independent factor in decreasing cancer-specific mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with TACE therapy, patients who were diagnosed with unresectable HCC treated with combined TACE and H101 therapy had increased OS and decreased cancer-specific mortality. The survival benefit was more obvious in patients with elevated AFP, absence of metastasis, single tumor, enlarged tumor, and HBsAg-positivity.

Tripartite motif-containing 3 (TRIM3) inhibits tumor growth and metastasis of liver cancer

BACKGROUND

Reduced expression of tripartite motif-containing 3 (TRIM3) has been reported to be involved in the pathogenesis of human glioblastoma. In our previous research, we found that TRIM3 expression was markedly reduced in human primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tissues and that low TRIM3 expression was associated with short survival of HCC patients. However, the role of TRIM3 in liver cancer remains unknown. This study aimed to investigate the function of TRIM3 in liver cancer cells.

METHODS

The protein levels of TRIM3 in five liver cancer cell lines (SK-Hep1, Hep3B, Huh7, HepG2, Bel-7402) and one normal liver cell line (L02) were detected with Western blotting. HepG2 and Bel-7402 cells with low TRIM3 expression were infected with recombinant lentiviruses overexpressing TRIM3 (LV-TRIM3), whereas Huh7 and Hep3B cells with high TRIM3 expression were transfected with TRIM3-targeted small interfering RNA (siTRIM3). The functions of TRIM3 in the proliferation, colony formation, cell cycle, migration, invasion, and apoptosis of the above cell lines were examined. The effect of TRIM3 on tumor growth and metastases in nude mice was also investigated.

RESULTS

TRIM3 was overexpressed in HepG2 and Bel-7402 cells with LV-TRIM3 infection, which further reduced proliferation, colony formation, migration, and invasion of both cell lines. Cell cycle analysis showed that TRIM3 overexpression induced G₀/G₁ phase arrest in HepG2 and Bel-7402 cells. Moreover, apoptosis was not increased in HepG2 or Bel-7402 cells overexpressing TRIM3. Contrarily, silencing TRIM3 expression in Huh7 and Hep3B cells by siTRIM3 led to significantly decreased percentages of both cells in the G₀/G₁ phase and promoted cell proliferation, colony formation, migration, and invasion. In vivo experiment results confirmed that TRIM3 overexpression suppressed tumor growth and metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

TRIM3 plays a tumor-suppressing role in the regulation of liver cancer development by reducing cell proliferation through cell cycle arrest at the G₀/G₁ phase.

MicroRNA-326 inhibits cell proliferation and invasion, activating apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma by directly targeting LIM and SH3 protein 1

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth-most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Increasing evidence indicates that dysregulation of microRNAs is often observed in HCC, and has been extensively investigated in terms of cancer formation, progression, diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis. Recently, microRNA-326 (miR-326) has been demonstrated to play important roles in multiple types of human cancer. However, the expression pattern, clinical significance, roles and regulatory mechanisms of miR-326 in HCC have yet to be elucidated. In this study, miR-326 was frequently downregulated in HCC tissues and cell lines. Low miR-326 expression was significantly associated with the TNM stage, differentiation and lymph node metastasis of HCC patients. Further functional assays demonstrated that the recovered miR-326 expression inhibited HCC cell proliferation and invasion and activated cell apoptosis in vitro. In addition, LIM and SH3 protein 1 (LASP1) was identified as a direct target gene of miR-326 in HCC. Furthermore, LASP1 was upregulated in HCC tissues and cell lines. The expression level of LASP1 mRNA was inversely correlated with that of miR-326 in HCC tissues. Moreover, LASP1 silencing elicited effects similar to miR-326 overexpression on HCC cells, and LASP1 upregulation markedly reversed the effects of miR-326 overexpression on HCC cells. These results revealed that miR-326 suppressed the progression of HCC by directly targeting LASP1. Therefore, miR-326 may be used as a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of patients with HCC.

Transarterial chemoembolization combined with recombinant human adenovirus type 5 H101 prolongs overall survival of patients with intermediate to advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a prognostic nomogram study

Background

Patients with intermediate to advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are most commonly treated with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Previous studies showed that TACE combined with recombinant human adenovirus type 5 (H101) may provide a clinical survival benefit. In the present study, we aimed to determine the survival benefit of TACE with or without H101 for patients with intermediate to advanced HCC and to develop an effective nomogram for predicting individual survival outcomes of these patients.

Methods

We retrospectively collected data from 590 patients with intermediate to advanced HCC who were treated at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center between January 2007 and July 2015. After propensity score matching, 238 patients who received TACE with H101 (TACE with H101 group) and 238 patients who received TACE without H101 (TACE group) were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method; the nomogram was developed based on Cox regression analysis. Discrimination and calibration were measured using the concordance index (c-index) and calibration plots.

Results

Clinical and radiologic features were similar between the two groups. OS rates were significantly lower in the TACE group than in the TACE with H101 group (1-year OS rate, 53.8% vs. 61.3%; 2-year OS rate, 33.4% vs. 44.2%; 3-year OS rate, 22.4% vs. 40.5%; all P < 0.05). Multivariate Cox regression analysis for the entire cohort showed that alpha-fetoprotein level, alkaline phosphatase level, tumor size, metastasis, vascular invasion, and TACE with or without H101 were independent factors for OS, all of which were included in the nomogram. Calibration curves showed good agreement between nomogram-predicted survival and observed survival. The c-index of the nomogram for predicting OS was 0.716 (95% confidence interval 0.686–0.746).

Conclusions

TACE plus H101 extends the survival of patients with intermediate to advanced HCC. Our proposed nomogram provides individual survival prediction and stratification for patients with intermediate to advanced HCC who receive TACE with or without H101.

Treatment and outcomes of recurrent hepatocellular carcinomas

PURPOSE

Surgery is one of the best options for curative treatment of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC). Recurrences are nevertheless common (45-75%). This study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) of patients with recurrent HCC after primary resection to OS of patients without recurrence.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all HCC patients operated between 1993 and 2015 was performed. Median and 5-year OS were calculated.

RESULTS

This study included 147 HCC patients. Sixty-seven patients presented a recurrence (46%). Patients with recurrence had a worse prognosis than those without recurrence (median OS 63 vs. 82 months, 5-year OS 47 vs. 54%, p = 0.036). First-line performed treatments were radiofrequency ablation (18, RFA), chemo-embolization (16, TACE), repeat hepatectomy (10), systemic chemotherapy (4), radio-embolization (1), and alcoholization (1). Palliative care was performed in 17 patients. Median OS of patients treated by RFA, TACE, or repeat hepatectomy were similar (77, 71, and 84 months, p = 0.735). Patients treated with chemotherapy/palliative care had lower median OS compared to interventional treatments (20 vs. 77 months, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence after surgical HCC resection is frequent and negatively impacts OS. Interventional treatments of recurrences offered improved outcomes compared to medical care. In selected patients, RFA, TACE, and repeat hepatectomy allowed similar OS as non-recurrent cases.

Left jackknife position: a novel position for laparoscopic hepatectomy

Background

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) located in segment VI, VII, or VIII of the liver is usually difficult because of poor operative exposure, due to the unique anatomical structure. In this study, we evaluated the practice of laparoscopic hepatectomy with the left jackknife position for patients with HCC located in segment VI, VII, or VIII.

Methods

A total of 10 patients were enrolled to undergo laparoscopic hepatectomy with the left jackknife position. Tumors located in segment VI, VII, or VIII were assessed by preoperative dynamic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative fasting time, postoperative drainage time, major postoperative complications, and duration of postoperative hospital stay were recorded.

Results

All surgeries were successfully completed. None of the patients required conversion to open surgery during the procedure, and no serious postoperative complications were observed. The median tumor size was 31 mm (range 23–41 mm) in diameter, the mean operation time was 166 ± 38 min, the mean intraoperative blood loss was 220 ± 135 mL, and the median postoperative hospital stay was 4 days (range 2–7 days).

Conclusions

For HCC located in segment VI, VII, or VIII, laparoscopic hepatectomy with this novel position—the left jackknife position—is safe and effective during tumor resection by exposing a sufficient operating field.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02809287

miR-634 exhibits anti-tumor activities toward hepatocellular carcinoma via Rab1A and DHX33

Deregulation of microRNAs contributes to the aberrant growth of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Here, we showed that miR-634 expression was frequently decreased in HCC. Low miR-634 expression was significantly associated with larger tumor size, poorer tumor differentiation, advanced TNM stage, vascular invasion, absence of tumor capsule and unfavorable overall survival. Overexpression of miR-634 markedly attenuated cell viability, colony formation, tumor growth and metastasis, whereas miR-634 inhibition resulted in the opposite phenotypes. Furthermore, re-introduction of miR-634 induced cell apoptosis in vitro and in vivo. Mechanistically, miR-634 inhibited the expression of Rab1A and DHX33 via directly binding to the 3'-UTR of both genes. In clinical samples, the expression of Rab1A or DHX33 was reversely correlated with miR-634. Re-expression of Rab1A or DHX33 abrogated the miR-634-mediated inhibition of cell proliferation and migration. Collectively, our data suggest a tumor suppressor role of miR-634 in HCC. The newly identified miR-634/Rab1A or miR-634/DHX33 axis serves as a potential therapeutic target for the clinical management.

Review of 103 Cases of Laparoscopic Repeat Liver Resection for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopic repeat liver resection (LRLR) has been shown in small retrospective studies to be a safe and effective treatment for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) in selected patients. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the current literature to determine the safety, feasibility, and oncologic integrity of LRLR for rHCC.

METHODS

A computerized search of the PubMed database was performed for all English language studies evaluating LRLR for HCC from January 1, 2005 to March 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Ten studies reporting on 103 patients were included in this review. 30/51 (58.5%) patients had liver cirrhosis. In 66/95 (69.5%) patients, the index surgery was an open resection and this was a major hepatectomy in 8/49 (16.3%) patients. In 17/72 (23.6%) patients, LRLR was performed for tumors in the posterosuperior segments and in 21/60 (35%) for ipsilateral HCC recurrence. The median tumor size of rHCC ranged from 17-40 mm and 8/69 (11.6%) LRLR were for multifocal rHCC. In 100/103 (97%) patients LRLR was attempted via pure laparoscopy and 2 (1.9%) required open conversion. Median operation time of LRLR ranged from 73-343 minutes and the median blood loss ranged from 50 to 297 mL. The reported postoperative morbidity was 24/97 (24.7%) and there was no postoperative mortality. The median postoperative length of stay ranged from 3.5 to 11 days. Three studies compared the outcomes of LRLR versus open resection for rHCC and all three demonstrated a significant decrease in blood loss in favor of LRLR.

CONCLUSION

In highly selected patients; LRLR for rHCC is feasible and safe. LRLR can be performed for patients with previous open LR, previous major hepatectomy, two previous LR, multiple tumors, liver cirrhosis, ipsilateral HCC recurrence, and cancers located in the difficult posterosuperior segments. Comparative studies have demonstrated that LRLR is superior to open repeat liver resection in terms of perioperative outcomes such as decreased blood loss and length of stay.